«Think tanks» or «forges of ideas»? The value agenda of the EAEU countries’ think tanks in the public policy framework

   There are more than two hundred analytical centers in the five EAEU countries that have formed a certain practice of participation in the socio-political life of the respective countries throughout the post-Soviet history. This practice has not yet been properly, studied in practical, terms, in terms of its real impact on the public policy formation and political decision-making. The article proposes to use / apply the existing theoretical developments regarding the activities of analytical centers, their results («ideas»), principles of interaction between themselves, as well as with state and public institutions («knowledge regimes», «model of stability and sustainability of state systems») to form a theoretical framework for assessing their role and functions in socio-political processes. As a result, an understanding of analytical centers as producers of «ideas» as well as the types of ideas and formats of their influence on socio-political processes, the functions of analytical centers in the context of ensuring stability and sustainability of state systems, ensuring public consent, and trust in state and public institutions was formed. The developed approach was tested as part of a study of the public activity of the EAEU think tanks in 2022 using quantitative and qualitative methods. The understanding of the dominant types of ideas produced by the analytical centers of the EAEU countries, of the main functions performed within the framework of ensuring the stability and sustainability of state systems, and of the «knowledge regimes» common among the EAEU countries was formed. The results obtained can be used to improve the activities of analytical centers both at the macro (the level of public policy) and at the micro (the level of a specific organization) levels.

1. Abelson D. Do think tanks matter? Assessing the impact of public policy institutes. Montreal: McGill’s Queens University Press, 2018, 560 p.

2. Atoyan V. K. The role of think tanks in integration processes. Science. Culture. Society. 2021, Vol. 27, N 3, P. 6–13. doi: 10.19181/nko.2021.27.3.1 (In Russ.)

3. Baez-Camargo C., Ledeneva A. Where does informality stop and corruption begin? Informal governance and the public/private crossover in Mexico, Russia and Tanzania. Slavonic and East European review. 2017, Vol. 95, N 1, P. 49–75.

4. Campbell J. L. Institutional analysis and the role of ideas in political economy. Theory and society. 1998, Vol. 27, N. 3, P. 377–409.

5. Campbell, J. L., Pedersen, O. K. Knowledge regimes and comparative political economy. In D. Béland & R. Cox (Eds.), Ideas and politics in social science research. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2011. P. 167–190

6. Carstensen M. B., Vivien A., Schmidt V. A. Power through, over and in ideas: conceptualizing ideational power in discursive institutionalism. Journal of European public policy. 2016, Vol. 23, N 3, P. 318–337. doi: 10.1080/13501763.2015.1115534

7. Drezner D. The ideas industry: how pessimists, partisans, and plutocrats are transforming the marketplace of ideas. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017, 360 p.

8. Efremenko D. V. Russian foreign policy and expert analysis institutions. Russia and contemporary world. 2014, N 1 (82). P. 37–54. (In Russ.)

9. Efremenko D. V. Expert-analysis communities and Russian foreign policy. In: The role of the expert-analysis communities in the public agenda formation in contemporary Russia. Collection of research papers, “Political Science” series. Moscow: INION RAN, 2017, P. 32–49. (in Russ.)

10. Hall P. A. Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: the case of economic policymaking in Britain. Comparative politics. 1993, Vol. 25, N. 3, P. 275–296.

11. Khmelnitskaya M. Socio-economic development and the politics of expertise in Putin’s Russia: The ‘hollow paradigm’ perspective. Europe-Asia studies. 2021, Vol. 73, N 4, P. 625–646. doi: 10.1080/09668136.2020.1853680

12. Komissina I. N. New think-tank with the Chinese specificity: problems and prospect for development. National Strategy Issues (RU). 2017, N. 6 (45), P. 68–83. (in Russ.)

13. Kudayarov K. A. Think tanks of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. RSUH / RGGU Bulletin. “Eurasian studies. History. Political science. International relations” Series. 2022, N 4, P. 60–72. doi: 10.28995/2686-7648-2022-4-60-72 (In Russ.)

14. Kudayarov K. A. Think tanks of Kyrgyzstan. Information and analytical journal «Social sciences and humanities: domestic and foreign literature». Series 9: «Oriental and African studies». 2022 b, N 3, P. 62–77. URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364304907_ANALITICESKIE_CENTRY_KYRGYZSTANA (In Russ.)

15. Kudayarov K. A. Think tanks of Tajikistan. Information and analytical journal «Social sciences and humanities: domestic and foreign literature». Series 9: «Oriental and African studies». 2022, N 4, P. 52–69. URL: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/analiticheskie-tsentry-tadzhikistana?ysclid=lijzal3rrs873709019 (In Russ.)

16. Kuznetsov A. V. (ed). “Greater Eurasia” think tanks directory. Moscow: INION RAN, 2022, 331 p. (Preprint). (In Russ.)

17. Kuznetsov A. V. (ed). Eurasian Economic Union think tanks directory. Moscow: INION RAN, 2021, 206 p. (In Russ)

18. Malinova O. Yu. Why ideas matter. Political science (RU). 2009, N 4, P. 5–24. (In Russ.)

19. Malinova O. Yu. Ideas as independent variables in political studies: in search of adequate methodology. Polis. Political studies. 2010, N 3, P. 90–99. (In Russ.)

20. Malinova O. Yu. Expert-analytical organizations and the formation of the public agenda: analysis of ideological practices in modern Russia. Political science (RU). 2013, N 4, P. 192–210. (In Russ.)

21. Maslov A. A. The transformation of analytical centers as an element of Chinese “soft power” in the 2010–2020. Outlines of global transformations: politics, economics, law. 2021, Vol. 14, N 4, P. 6–22. doi: 10.23932/2542-0240-2021-14-4-1. (In Russ.)

22. McGann J., Johnson E. Comparative think tanks, politics and public policy. Cheltenham, U. K.: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2005, 288 p.

23. McGann J. G., Weaver R.K. (eds). Think tanks and civil societies. New Brunswick: Transaction, 2000, 617 p. doi: 10.4324/9781315135595

24. McGann J. The fifth estate. Think tanks, public policy and governance. Washington D. C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2016, 240 p.

25. Rich A. Think tanks, public policy and the politics of expertise. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004, 270 p. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511509889

26. Rimsky V. L., Sungurov A. Yu. Russian centers of public policy: experience and prospects. Polis. Political studies. 2002, N 6, P. 143–150. doi: 10.17976/jpps/2002.06.13 (In Russ.)

27. Ruser A. What to think about think tanks: towards a conceptual framework of strategic think tank behaviour. International journal of politics, culture and society. 2018, N 31, P 179–192. doi: 10.1007/s10767-018-9278-x

28. Sungurov A. Yu. Expert communities and authorities: interaction models, main functions and conditions for their implementation. Political Science (Ru). 2015, N 3, P. 43–70. (In Russ.)

29. Sungurov A. Yu., Raspopov N. P., Belyaeva A. Yu. Mediator institutions and their development in contemporary Russia. Part II. Think tanks and public policy centers. Polis. Political Studies. 2012, N 4, P. 99–116. (In Russ.)

30. Vilisov M. V., Telin K. O., Filimonov K. G. From resilience to stability: what makes public policy good? Journal of political theory, political philosophy and sociology of politics. Politeia. 2020, N 1, P. 7–27. doi: 10.30570/2078-5089-2020-96-1-7-27 (In Russ.)

31. Weidenbaum M. Measuring the influence of think tanks. Society. 2010, N 47, P. 134–137. doi: 10.1007/s12115-009-9292-8

32. Westerwinter O., Abbot K., Biersteker T. Informal governance in world politics. The Review of international organizations. 2021, N 16, P. 1–27. doi: 10.1007/s11558-020-09382-1

33. Yakunin V. V., Kuznetsov I. I., Vilisov M. V. The Post-Soviet state systems’ resilience: an outline of the theoretical model. Outlines of global transformations: politics, economics, law. 2020, Vol. 13, N 4, P. 6–33. doi: 10.23932/2542-0240-2020-13-4-1. (In Russ.)

34. Zaitsev D. G. Think tanks as the political process subjects. Abstract of the dissertation for the degree of Candidate of Political Sciences. Moscow: Institute of World Economy and International Relations of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2009, 19 p. (In Russ.)